Is there clear evidence that ice is unlawfully targeting people based on race?
Executive summary
Multiple recent news investigations, local police complaints, and an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit document numerous incidents in which ICE and CBP agents stopped, detained or confronted Black, Latino and Somali people—sometimes ignoring presented proof of citizenship—and a judge acknowledged “evidence” of racial profiling in a Minnesota surge; at the same time, the Department of Homeland Security disputes those allegations and the legal landscape (including a recent Supreme Court order) complicates how race-related stops are evaluated [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Taken together, the record supports credible, corroborated allegations of racial profiling in specific operations but does not yet show a single final judicial finding that ICE, across the board, is unlawfully targeting people solely on the basis of race.
1. The pattern seen on the streets: citizen complaints, videos and local officials
Since the winter 2025–26 surge of immigration enforcement, journalists and local police in Minnesota and elsewhere have documented multiple encounters—at bus stops, sidewalks and traffic stops—where people of color were questioned or detained by ICE/CBP and sometimes had proof of citizenship dismissed; those episodes have been captured on video, prompted community fear, and generated dozens of complaints to local law enforcement [1] [6] [7] [8].
2. Litigation and civil-rights groups say the conduct crosses a legal line
The ACLU and partners filed suits alleging warrantless arrests, suspicionless stops and the routine targeting of Somali and Latino residents in Operation Metro Surge, framing the conduct as constitutional violations and seeking systemic relief—formal legal claims that elevate anecdote to an evidentiary record that courts must confront [2] [9].
3. Judicial reactions are mixed but not dismissive of profiling claims
In litigation over Minnesota operations a judge explicitly found there was “evidence that ICE and CBP … have engaged in racial profiling, excessive use of force, and other harmful actions,” even while denying certain relief requests—an acknowledgement that strengthens plaintiffs’ factual record though it stops short of a sweeping national judicial finding [3].
4. Federal officials and DHS push back hard—calling the claims unproven or harmful
DHS and ICE leaders have publicly rejected reporting they characterize as anonymous or unverified and insist arrests target criminal noncitizens rather than people based on skin color, arguing media coverage fuels hostility toward agents; that institutional denial is central to the dispute and highlights the political stakes shaping how evidence is collected and interpreted [4].
5. Legal doctrine and a recent Supreme Court order complicate the line between lawful and unlawful profiling
A September Supreme Court action allowing agents in southern California to consider perceived race or ethnicity among factors when deciding whom to question changes the legal terrain: what might look like discriminatory targeting to community members can be defended as a permissible investigative factor under current precedent, which complicates civil-rights claims even where community harm is evident [10] [5].
6. Corroboration beyond anecdotes: databases, surveillance and institutional practices
Reporting on ICE’s surveillance tools and facial profiling practices shows agencies possess technical capabilities to focus enforcement on communities and individuals, and internal comments and patterns of deployment—such as concentrated surges into Somali and Latino neighborhoods—provide contextual support for profiling allegations, though technology reports alone do not legally prove race-based illegality without case-by-case proof [11] [12].
7. Bottom line: credible evidence of problematic, possibly unlawful conduct—yet not a single definitive national ruling
The available reporting provides substantial, corroborated evidence of incidents, local official concern, and formal lawsuits alleging racial profiling—so there is clear, documented basis to conclude ICE has engaged in racially discriminatory stops and arrests in specific operations [1] [2] [3] [6]. However, because DHS disputes the allegations and the courts and Supreme Court orders have created contested legal standards, the record does not yet contain a definitive, nationwide judicial ruling that ICE is systemically and unlawfully targeting people solely because of race; instead the situation is a live legal and political fight with significant evidence on the plaintiffs’ side that will be resolved through litigation and oversight [4] [3].